Communism is infact NOT a society in which there is a dictator with full government control as most of u brainwashed people might beleive. So can anyone tell me why America distorts the real meaning? Further attempts to rewrite history or just a mistake?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that every incarnation of Communism around the world has been touted as the "true form" of Communism. Then when it fails terrible and millions of people die the Communist go on and call it "state capitalism" and come up with yet another form of Communism.

The only possible result of Communist philosophy is a dictatorship.

Yes, he only killed off his oponents. Terrific guy. Not to mention the fact that Yugoslovia compared to the west was and is in poverty. God knows how many his own secret police killed to keep "Brotherhood and Unity".

I don't claim him to be a saint, but the CIA did kill him off. They also killed the Chilean communist candidate -who was democratically elected- Salvador Allende.

Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore. After tito died it basically dissolved into a civil war, then officially dissolved in 2003.

1. Allende's party did not receive the number of votes required to rule the country and was, therefore, declared by the Supreme Court and the comptroller general of the republic to be unconstitutional.

Just before the coup, the Chilean Congress passed a resolution accusing Allende of numerous illegal, unconstitutional, and dictatorial actions and calling for his removal.

2. No evidence has been provided directly linking the CIA to Allende's overthrow. Although America would have been morally justified in taking such actions.

Could you define the tenents of what you call communism, then?

Never mind telling us what Communism isn't.

Tell us what it is.

And tell what Socialism is as well.

And tell us what political system you are in favour of.

And I'm Scottish BTW and my sources for economics are from the Austrian school and from French classical economists.

Slobodan Milosevic, like Hitler, was a socialist.

The principles of Communism, try reading a book before you burn it.

Hitler was no socialist. Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda ! If national socialist means that it is socialist, does the german democratic republic mean its german?

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power.

To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Unclassified CIA papers acknowledging their assassination of Allende. They give Pinochet power, killing thousands -if not millions- of people.

Bush too was elected by the supreme court rulings. Democracy doesn't always work and sometimes when it does fail, modern "democracies" have the judicial branch choose and chooses -for example, Bush- bad decisions.

Do you have proof of the second claim?

"Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power."

Socialism is defined (among other things) as state control of the economy. By a "merge" of state and corporate power Mussolini meant the forcible control of corporations by the state. Thus is WAS in fact socialism.

Fascism, specifically, means the retaining of the existance of private property, while bringing its CONTROL into the hands of the state. If the "owners" of property do not control its use and disposal, then can they be said to "own" their property? NO.

So as such should Fascism be considered a variant of socialism or of capitalism?

Socialism is state control of property, Capitalism is individual ownership of property.

So therefore it is obvious that since Fascism was state CONTROL of property, with private ownership being in name only, then Fascism is clearly a breed of SOCIALISM and not of CAPITALISM.

Never mind the textbook definitions. Tell us what YOU advocate. Tell us what YOU think. Should individuals have a right to own property?

Of course, the dictator does not have full control. He has control over the things that need to be controlled like the military and the economy. He dictates the rest of the power to people he trusts. Those people only do what they thing the dictator wants out of either loyalty or fear.

America does not distort the meaning. We see the truth and that is why we fight against it.

Notice that the US has a better economy then all of them.

WRONG! When is this going to die? Bush won Florida. Every recount sence the election says that Bush won Florida. So if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, BUSH WOULD HAVE WON.

Not one of these documents acknowledges that the CIA assasinated Allende.The stuff about Operation Condor everyone knows about.We're talking about the coup itself,which was a completely domestic affair.Notice that there's an enormous gap between 1970(when we did attempt to undermine Allende but pulled the plug)and 1973.Second,the Chilean Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that Pinochet's regime was responsible for 3,197 deaths.Where in the hell did you get the 'millions' figure from?

Um,it's not exactly a secret.On August 22,1973,Chilean Congress passed a resolution which resolved:

Robert J. Alexander, The Tragedy of Chile-Pg.318

He also described it as a 'Marxist heresy'.Whether Fascism should be considered right or left is beside the point at the moment.The point is to deny that Fascism's intellectual roots are on the left is simply asinine.

That's sort of the point.When Lenin wrote 'What is to be Done?',he was tacitly admitting that Marx was wrong.The 'inevitable socialist revolution' ain't so inevitable.It turned out the working classes that Marx so maganimously appointed himself to speak for despite the fact that he never set foot in a factory and never met a working class person besides his maid(whom he impregnated then refused to have anything to do with)actually liked capitalism.Some people,like Bernstein,realized this and then attempted to work within the system when it became clear that there would be no revolution.This made a lot more sense,but it robbed Marxism of it's pseudo-religious cloak of historical inevitability,without which,it loses a lot of it's luster.So others,like Lenin,for whom the revolution was an end in and of itself,decided that if the working classes don't want to revolt,a bunch of intellectuals would do it for them.

Presumably they'd be thanked later.

Oh christ,not the old 'true communism has never been tried' myth again.Does this canard ever get old?For the past 70 years,fellow travelers have trotted out this same old line every time a communist dictatorship collapses.'Oh,well of course(insert communist hell chamber here)fell,it's not true communism,(insert murderous communist dictator here)got Marx all wrong,the next one will work out though!'

Repeat ad infinitum.

It's always the same.The fellow travelers embraced Stalin,then rejected him.They emrbaced Mao,then rejected him.They embraced Ho Chi Minh,then rejected him.They embraced Daniel Ortega,then rejected him.They still haven't fully rejected Castro.It never ends.And each time the current great red hope drowns their people in an ocean of blood,you simply get a shrug,and a non-committal,'the next one will get Marx right'.The most obvious idea of all,that Lenin, Stalin,Mao,Castro,Pol Pot,Ho Chi Minh,Ceausescu,Tito,Jaruzelski,Hoxha,Mengistu,Kim-il Sung,etc.didn't get Marx wrong at all,but that Marx himself was wrong,simply never occurs to some people.The 'true communism hasn't been tried yet' spiel,strikes me as basically the somewhat desperate grasping at straws of someone who can't bring themselves to admit that maybe,just maybe,someone like Stalin might have been the logical outgrowth of Marxist thought.

Im not a communist per say (unless socialist are communist). Why were the old absolute monarchies(1800-1900's) not called communist. Its practically the same thing, in cases the king or queen might give advisors some control or authority but its just the same thing as we have seen in the pseudo-socialist states as nazi germany and the CCCP. Its not real. Military dictators(like hitler) rise to power and tell the people that his party is socialist when indeed hes not at all. Maybe to make his people believe in him? up nationalism? whatever it was i dont know. But look at the stages of communism for me and then look at the final stage, compare it to what weve seen and tell me its the same....u cant.